« Wages, fairness & productivity | Main | Diversifying mental states »

February 01, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e2017d40aad128970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The "nation's finances":

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Anonymous

Great stuff!

Words and thought are inextricably linked. Sloppy wording produces, or is a product of, sloppy thought.

Hopisen

I cna confirm it was a parody. (or at least, a sarcastic commentary on the sort of rhetorical sleight of hand you describe, and how effective it can be)

Agog

Some of these people presumably at some level treat the 'UK PLC' analogy as a true description, and believe that the government budget balance corresponds to a corporate profit and loss statement. Got to look after the bottom line...

People do still (more intelligently, I think) track the international investment position of course. This pre-crisis report from the BoE is quite interesting:

http://goo.gl/A8uSZ (pdf)

aragon

Comment on the Krugman/Stigliz debate.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13235/

While agreeing with blog posting.

"No. If a man dodges £100 of tax, he's £100 better off and the Exchequer is £100 worse off. Net, the UK economy is not deprived at all - or at least, if you think it is, you need to say a lot more about why."

Starbucks, Google et al ... And the distribution of wealth impacts the UK economy (See article above).

"balance the books on the backs of 160,000 extra unemployed!"

No, the figure is from a model and the model is inaccurate, and a transfer of 2.2Billion from the low paying corporate sector to the public sector, with additional monies transfered to the low paid from the corporate sector, a sector enjoying public subsidy.

Institute of Economic Affairs on redefining povety, along the lines of the living wage calculation (Which still excludes rent and taxes).

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/reviewofbooks_preview/13312

http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/redefining-the-poverty-debate-why-a-war-on-markets-is-no-substitute-for-a-war-

Keith

Off course if the Nation is defined as the households or individuals who compose it then the Governments policies are impoverishing the finances of most people. With the most severe cuts targeted at the poorest subset. No real justification has ever been given for doing this except lots of hand waving hysteria and tabloid lies.

The policies also are almost all the opposite of what both the Tory and Lib Dem parties promised before the General Election. It is a total ant democratic disgrace.But every one in the media seem so corrupt and complacent they are fine with irrational policy based on lies. No accountability at all.

As for cutting the state deficit; it is irrelevant as you point out. Indeed more safe liquid assets i.e. National debt may be a good thing if we accept the Minsky thesis that only the state in a capitalist society can create adequate liquid financial instruments to keep the financial system stable. Which puts the deficit in a totally different light. Namely it is useful to have a national debt. A point I thought every one who has studies economics or economic history was agreed on many years ago.

Jorjun

I much prefer a government that deals with the fiscal realities as it finds them, than a Labour government that assumes future growth, or a successful future tax persecution. It is true that state spending as a proportion of GDP is actually unsustainable, that growth or cuts must address this crisis. And that the safest and most responsible action is to cut spending, in the first instance. Encouragement for growth normally comes through reduction in regulation. Regulation, as we have seen from Labour - normally is good for the corporate lobby, not bad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad